The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 2) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Aug 21, 07 - 2:26 AM |
Looking closer at Socrates's "square" (Part II)
Previously (in Part I):- That is the ESSENCE of what Aristotle's "square" teaches --- TRUE propositions CONTRADICT and are contradicted-by FALSE propositions. One is obliged to find their true and false propositions by other methods than FORMAL LOGIC. With Aristotle it was careful OBSERVATION (of nature and natures). With some modern scientists it is EXPERIMENTS. None-the-less modern experiments still involve OBSERVATION, hypothesis, experiment, OBSERVATION (of results or "data") and conclusions, followed by further hypotheses and experiments. There is hardly any so-called "modern scientific" THEORY, that hasn't been either severely modified or entirely overthrown by that scientific METHOD, since the method got really going in the 17th Century. Think of Newton's MATTER can't be created or, especially, DESTROYED. Hiroshima blew that "theory" into a cocked hat. Still, Galileo's observations and Newton's LAWS of MOTION and mathematics (calculus); even variants of Descartes's Cartesian Coordinate geometry; are still applied with modern updates/modifications in calculating how to maintain modern satellites in relatively "stable" orbits around our earth, despite all the "relativistic-critics" of Newton. So Newton's theories became limited in both "scope" and application. But they hardly became utterly FALSE, useless, or "conducive" to ignorance or error. Newton's theories and LAWS OF MOTION were "little steps" toward Einstein's theories (special and general relativity) and toward quantum mechanics. It is much less arguable, in my less than humble opinion, that so-called "Aristotelian LOGIC" was a "little step" on the way to MODERN SYMBOLIC LOGIC (mathematical logic/s; "fuzzy" LOGIC; etc.), for at least two reasons. (1) Aristotle, as previously mentioned, doesn't seem to have taken credit for the "discovery" of LOGIC (Sophistical Refutations) despite what many of his admirers assert. And (2) people still use the PRINCIPLE of CONTRADICTION (or non-contradiction if one prefers)in any "LOGIC". The "idea" of a personal LOGIC; eg. "Aristotelian-LOGIC" is like saying that EUCLID "discovered" Geometry, simply because he compiled lists of axioms, theorems and proofs made or "discovered" by his GEOMETRY-predecessors. So, if there is an "Aristotelian LOGIC", is there, similarly, an "Aristotelian-ARITHMETIC" or an "Aristotelian-GRAMMAR" widely divergent from, for example, either "Egyptian Arithmetic" or classical Greek idiom and/or grammar? One doubts. Aristotle admits that it is sometimes necessary to "coin" new terms, given new information or "theoria"/speculation. But he is, quite equally, one of the most insistent philosophers in arguing that we must pay attention to "our predecessors", so that we can profit from their wisdom, if any, and avoid their errors, if any. He is also insistent that we should pay attention to the "sayings" of older people because their EXPERIENCE (even when bereft of "theory" or "speculative-Wisdom") is a good teacher of, at the very least, PRACTICAL WISDOM. Aristotle never tires of arguing that people with EXPERIENCE-alone, often succeed far better than people who have THEORY without EXPERIENCE, because experience is KNOWLEDGE of individuals and of particulars, rather than of UNIVERSALS (Laws and Theories which encompass, or are common to, many individual and particular things). And it is the individual or particular thing which has to be made (as in the building arts) cured (as in Medicine) or DONE (as in ETHICS or POLITICS). So a person with the "theory", but NO/little EXPERIENCE, will often fail to "grasp" the individual or particular which is subsumed under a GENERAL or SPECULATIVE "theory". However, someone with both "theoria" and EXPERIENCE is, usually, going to "mentally see" far more things about particulars and individuals (than a person with experience only) when they have both a sound theory and practical experience/s as well. Today "Aristotle's" (would you believe Plato's, Socrates's and many "unknown others'") distinctions between theoria and praxis (practical experience) are often called PURE or THEORETICAL SCIENCE in contrast to PRACTICAL or APPLIED SCIENCE. But "the game/s" are the same as initiated by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and numerous unnamed friends and "fellows" of the Academy and Lyceum. So, anyone who argues as does Bertrand Russell (Kant and others, like David Hume), to the effect that "SCIENCE" makes progress, but PHILOSOPHY "goes nowhere" is, quite frankly, missing both Plato's and Aristotle's POINTS that "Natural philosophy" IS PHYSICS or modern science and that SPECULATIVE mathematics IS modern mathematics in their respective "step by step" fits/starts of progress FROM the Academy and Lyceum to the present. In sum, you get many smart people, who KNOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS, together in one place, and they TEACH and LEARN from each other. contd. KB |
|
Kevin
Aug 21st, 2007 - 6:53 AM |
Re: Looking closer at Socrates's "square" (Part II)
Let us examine together that original STRONG ARGUMENT (actual strong proposition) of the particular oracle concerning Socrates's wisdom courtesy of Plato's APOLOGY and a personal oracle via the Pythian-priestess at Delphi. Since the contradiction cross or "backbone" of Aristotle's "square" requires so many characters, I won't use it this time. Pretend it's below in the bare repetition of an exemplary 4-sentence "square". I'll put the suggested TRUTH vs. FALSITY "values", according to the "Pythian" and in accord with Aristotle's sentential LOGIC "squares" below each sentence on this reiteration. So we "see"... ONCE AGAIN: EVERY man is wiser than Soc VS. NO man is wiser TS (ergo false) (TRUE; Oracle of Delphi ---CONTRADICTION CROSS--- SOME man is wiser TS; & SOME man is NOT wiser TS (ergo FALSE) (ergo TRUE) The STRENGTH of this allegedly "strong argument", comes from the "strength" of an allegedly TRUE proposition sitting in one of the pair of CONTRARY positions of the "square". So it should be immediately UNDERSTOOD from that allegedly TRUE and "strong" proposition that its CONTRARY must be also asserted to be FALSE (at least by "the oracle"), because CONTRARY propositions are extreme logical opposites. Then, because of the PNC, the truth and falsity of both contradictory propositions vs. both "strong-CONTRARIES" should become OBVIOUS, if one KNOWS the BASIC LAW OF THOUGHT and actually accepts the AUTHORITY and TRUTH of a Delphic Oracle. As previously mentioned, Socrates doubted the oracle for the previously stated reason/s (I am very conscious that I am not wise; How can he say I am wisest; It is not legitimate for a god to lie.) But riddles were normal with oracles. So WHAT Socrates attempted to do was arrive at this "weak argument square", which would REFUTE the oracle's STRONG proposition (misnamed "argument") IN EFFECT, Socrates sought to obtain this "square": EVERY man is wiser than Soc. vs NO man is wiser-TS ---CROSS--- SOME man is wiser-TS & SOME man is NOT wiser-TS (TRUE by Socratic inquiry) (TRUE; Socratic inquiry) This attempted process of Socrates, which Plato informs us that he FAILED to prove, is what is called trying to make the STRONG ARGUMENT "weaker" and the WEAK ARGUMENT "stronger". It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway, that the "SOME man" referred to in both "subcontrary" propositions (Some man is wiser than Socrates "&" Some man is NOT wiser than Socrates) would have to be at least 2 DIFFERENT men and arguably more than 2 in either case. That is obviously because ("PNC" to use Ivo's expression) the SAME IDENTICAL MAN could NOT be, at the same time, and in the same respect, BOTH "wiser" and "NOT-wiser" than Socrates. Where the IDENTICAL "some-MAN" is referred to we have the most common examples of CONTRADICTIONS and of CONTRADICTORY propositions. eg. Socrates is a foolish, atheistic and dangerous youth corruptor. In short, SOCRATES is a bad man vs. I beg to differ (said Plato; indicating a contradiction) SOCRATES was the wisest, most pious and best teacher of "the good" in all of Athens or Hellas for that matter. In short, and to differ, SOCRATES was a NOT a bad man. But even more strongly and ON THE CONTRARY Socrates was the best, most good and wisest of all Athenians. IN SUM, people don't always use the same terminology as found in an "Aristotelian Square", to wit EVERY man is "x" vs. NO man is "x" for contrary propositions and SOME man is "x" & Some man is NOT "x" for the CONTRADICTORIES (of each respective CONTRARY proposition). "Some man is NOT good." can mean either that "Some man is BAD." or that this very same man may be merely "banal" or "mediocre" and neither good, nor bad. In short, most human beings are perfectly competent to employ both CONTRARY and CONTRADICTORY terms, instead of the more lengthy CONTRARY and CONTRADICTORY propositions of "squares" to express the same or similar meanings. So human languages are both "richer" and more expressive of shades of meaning than any strict LOGICIAN cares to attempt to symbolize. More significantly, human languages and terms are often ambiguous (single terms; MORE THAN ONE MEANING). Logicians, with so-called "mathematical-logics", desire to abolish ambiguity with unambiguous symbols. Yet in attempts to tame "ambiguity", they devise variables and/or sets which may mean almost ANYTHING! Ergo, Obscure-ambiguity! KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com